Fresno police aren't sure how long the woman endured the dog's attacks before someone discovered her in an alley in Central Fresno. Investigators said the victim's body is covered with deep puncture wounds and scratches making it difficult to identify her.

Officers said the vicious attack was horrific. Her arm was nearly ripped off, her scalp torn off and her face not even recognizable. The chief aggressor, according to police, is A FEMALE PIT BULL MIX THAT'S ONLY 4 TO 6 MONTHS OLD. Officers said the light brown dog wouldn't let loose during an attack in an alley on Angus and McKenzie. The dogs owner was the first to investigate sounds coming from behind her house.

"She saw two of her dogs on top of something in the alley. She got one to get off of what it was, she didn't know it was a female at that time. She went to get the other dog that was still on top of the object and saw that the dogs were attacking a female in the alley," said Lt. Joe Gomez, Fresno Police Department.

Detectives said it's unclear whether the woman is homeless or lives in the area.

Officers said the dogs were in a gated yard but may have squeezed through a small opening or jumped the fence. The SPCA took the dogs, that police said will be put down. The other is a brindle colored PIT BULL MIX WHO IS 8 TO 12 MONTHS OLD.

The dogs owner-- from her porch-- said she feels very remorseful about what happened.

"It's very traumatic for both sides. So we're just asking for a little privacy right now so we can intake this matter. It's an emotional situation for every individual involved."

It's unknown if the dogs have any past history of malicious behavior. So far, Fresno police said it does not appear the dogs owner is at fault.

"There's nothing from what the officers tell me here to indicate that there's any negligence at this point on the owners part," said Gomez.

The victim was conscious when the ambulance arrived. She told emergency crews she was thirsty and in a lot of pain.

She has been in surgery for more than six hours.

_______________________________________________

A woman mauled by TWO PIT BULL DOGS is in extremely critical condition after an attack in an alley near downtown Fresno early Tuesday morning, police reported.

The attack happened in an alley near Diamond Street and McKenzie Avenue, near the Highway 41 offramp at Divisadero Street.

The woman, who may be a transient, was walking in the alley when the dogs escaped a fenced yard, possibly through an alley gate or by climbing atop a chair, police Lt. Joe Gomez said.

The woman sustained serious bites over most of her body and was rushed to the trauma center at Community Regional Medical Center. Gomez said the woman needed emergency blood transfusions.

Four dogs were taken away after the attack. Police say two will be euthanized and the other two will be evaluated.

Police did not immediately know the identity of the victim, who is in her 50s. Officers tried to use a fingerprint reader for identification but were unsuccessful because of the extent of her injuries.

In addition to the severity of the bites, the victim is at the risk of serious infection. At the hospital, the victim was able to tell nurses she was very thirsty and in a great deal of pain.

Officers were called to the alley about 6:30 a.m. They learned the owner of the dogs heard something in the alley but did not know what because it was dark.

She was able to call one of the attacking dogs. When she went to get the other dog, she realized it was attacking the victim, was able to control it and told a neighbor to call police.

Police do not know how long the attack lasted before the owner interceded.

The department’s Crime Scene Bureau is collecting evidence. Gomez said the dogs’ owner might face charges of having an unrestrained animal.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.